General Conference Part II: Think Celestial!

Hello and welcome to another episode of Inside Out. My name is Jim Bennett and I am here with the indomitable Ian Wilkes. Ian, how are you, sir?

I'm doing very well, Jim, and indomitable is a title that I feel compelled to live up to.

Well, I think it's a title that fits. I think you're absolutely indomitable.

You're very kind. Thank you.

And I think we are indomitably going forward. We began in our last podcast the discussion of General Conference, and I think had anticipated that we would talk about the totality of it. But we ended up really focusing on President Oaks's talk and didn't get to President Nelson's talk, which is, I think, obviously the centerpiece of the conference. The fact that President Nelson was not there physically— he had suffered an injury, a back injury, a couple of weeks before— I think that heightened the anticipation and also sort of heightened the impact of the talk because he was, you know, it had taken so much for him to be able to deliver it that everybody was on pins and needles to try to find out what it was that he was, that he was going to say. And since conference, the, his talk has been essentially the focus of discussion. I haven't really heard a lot about President Oaks' talk since conference concluded. I think to a lot of people, again, as we talked about, he had said so many of those things before that there really isn't a need to sort of go over them again. But President Nelson did go into territory that, that is somewhat new and gave, gave the talk. And it's been interesting because as you and I have talked about, you know, I'm on the inside, you're on the outside. And I think you liked that talk more than I did. Do you think that's fair to say? I guess I haven't talked about why it wasn't my favorite.

There are some aspects of it I struggle with, which I find, you know, President Nelson's talk quite negative and quite, quite harmful, actually. So there's some more difficult elements of the talk, but I also see in the same talk some positive elements to it as well. And again, I try and, you know, as the principle of the podcast is to, and the view that we have in the, you know, the Inside Out podcast and the theme and the focus is, you know, where the church is doing really well and speaking appropriately and respectfully and kindly and with love and behaving, fulfilling its promises and commitments that it makes, et cetera, to help people, I think it deserves credit. Where it isn't and requires change and improvement and requires constructive criticism, then I think it's deserving of that as well. And in this talk, I see some positive elements, yes, but I also see some aspects which are quite difficult as well. So I'm somewhere in the middle.

Well, I think we're going to probably spend most of our time on the more problematic elements, but I would love to hear at the outset what you found positive in this talk.

So if you look at all the talks or most of the talks, there's many positive aspects in every talk that were delivered at General Conference. And you see that, in my opinion, at least in every conference. Those general statements that, that the leaders communicate. And in this talk here, it's no, it's no different. He talks about the Savior's Atonement, appreciation of Jesus Christ and the incomprehensible gift of the Atonement. These are really important teachings and doctrines and the tenets of the Church is that relationship with Jesus Christ. He reminds us that the Savior suffered pain and affliction, for temptations of every kind, and that he can rescue us in times of need. Uh, you know, that relationship with Christ is absolutely the fulcrum of, uh, your relationship with the church and God and Jesus Christ. You know, the nature of God in essence is the fulcrum of people's relationship with, um, with the Savior. And he, as you'd expect as a prophet, reminds members that that relationship is key and can get us through difficult times, pains and afflictions. He talks about that. You know, he talks about what comes through in this talk is his frailties, physical frailties. 99 years old, and he couldn't attend conference and he's struggling physically. When you see him physically, and I've not seen him speak actually for a year, I can tell having not seen one of his video presentations, talks for a while, he's physically he is deteriorating and he's going through those, um, those challenges associated with old age. Uh, but he reminds, uh, you know, the, the members about the comfort, uh, that you can have with the relationship of Jesus Christ, that, that can heal us. Uh, he talks about, um, what Christ went through at the beginning of the talk, and then he connects it to his, his injury that caused him to reflect again and again on the greatness of the Holy One of Israel. And I think when— what I see in that is when we go through difficulty and pain, physically, emotionally, psychologically, spiritually, you know, we all, we all do, depending on— well, regardless rather of what religious background we have, or religious or not, we go through trials and tribulations. Those people who do believe in Christ, who do believe in God, and whether experiencing pain, can relate it to what Christ went through. And I think that was a very important remind us that with Christ, that we can, we can get through a lot. And that's the message that I got, one of the key messages I got, that no matter what your trial or tribulation is, if you have that relationship with Christ, if he's your partner, and if you are serving him and following his principles, he will get you through. And he understands the pain you're going through. So I, I see that as a very positive thing. And then the second quick comment in terms of, you know, the positive thing from the outset of the talk, he talks about The mystery of life and uncertainty of our future allows us, you know, it allows us to choose how we want to live here and where we want to live, et cetera. And he talks about the basis notion that we should eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die and it should be well with us. It's one of the most absurd lies in the universe. I don't entirely agree with that because I think you have to live in the moment. We're also planning for the future. But the thing about the mystery in life is a lot of people that do need and want some level of certainty, some level of confidence, some level of assurance that, you know, they, that there is a purpose and meaning in life and that we're here for, for a reason. And if we follow Jesus Christ and follow his principles, it will be right with us. And, you know, we, our future will be assured again if we follow the example of Christ. So I see these very positive comments. Oh yes, the general, the universal, we hear them a lot. They're very safe ground for the church, by the way. If you look at those talks where they give those general and often remixed or regurgitated, but the same messages on those general universal principles, they can't go wrong on that. You really have to screw up big time on stuff like that, which they did at times where they decided, where they said that, you know, the two commandments there where they brought some type of interpretation where love God and love your fellow man and not always able to reconcile, you know, that— I think, I think they said that God's love wasn't unconditional at some point in the talk that they gave. And I think they got into some, some trouble, some confusion over that. But where they deliver those consistent general messages about Jesus Christ, they're on safe ground. And I think that's, that's a positive thing. So You know, there, there are two or three responses to your question in terms of some of the more positive aspects of this talk, uh, but there are, there are elements of the talk which are quite, uh, difficult, and I have issues with.

Well, uh, it's interesting you, you raise the two, two things, the idea of conflict between the two great commandments. And I think one of the things that was so significant about President Oaks's talk is that he was essentially backing down from that, that at that YSA fireside, he explicitly said, I think we've been doing this wrong. And now as he's framing this, the issue with the proclamation of the family and everything else, he, he's no longer using that. And you also mentioned this idea that God's love is conditional. And that comes from a previous talk by President Nelson. I don't think— I am fairly sure he gave that talk prior to becoming president of the Church. We haven't heard— that wasn't in this talk, and we haven't heard that from him explicitly for a very long time. And I'm wondering if that is a teaching that has kind of faded and that has maybe faded even in President Nelson's own mind, that that may not be something that he feels as strongly about anymore.

I think, sorry to interrupt, I think that's what happens when they make such a significant statement that my interpretation was that God's love is not unconditional, contrary to what I've always been taught and what I taught over the, you know, 35 years in the church. That's a very significant shift in what I think most people interpret that doctrine to be. And then when they don't talk about it, or it doesn't come up again. I think that's deliberate because they think they've, you know, made an error, they screwed up, or this, this, um, because there was, I saw a fairly big reaction to that in, in my circle. There was a lot of confusion around that. And then when you get the confusion, instead of tackling it head-on, they don't talk about it. They go quiet. And then at some, and then it will disappear and they don't bring it up again because it's a very difficult, uh, subject. So, and from that Scripture, that, um, doctrine change that in my mind was very significant. I got the impression that— this is my interpretation of that— that you can't do anything and God still loves you. If you do certain things or behave in a certain way or screw up or make a mistake, you can't be assured of God's love. It's not guaranteed. And I always thought it was, no matter what we do, how many screw-ups we make, how many mistakes that we make, no matter how many errors in life, how many flaws that we have, no matter what our background, our challenges, God always unconditionally loves you. And when they came out and said, uh, when he came out and said that's not necessarily the case, uh, it was, it was a shock. And they don't go back to those things because it's, it's disappeared or it's gone quiet. And it opens up another can of worms if they start talking about it. And then they also look foolish because the prophet, they should know better on something so fundamental as God's love. There's nothing more basic than in religious and faith and belief in Christianity and other religions as the love that we think we have, we think God has for us. It doesn't get more basic, more important than that. But when you start messing with stuff like that, you're on difficult ground. And if you try to go back and explain yourself again, you're getting yourself into a mess. So the best thing you could do is to when he comes out with, you know, ridiculous comments like that is to, is to forget it. So I don't think we will hear from that. But again, I think the talk reminds us here about the relationship with Christ. And I see the opening remarks is good context, and I see it as setting the stage for his comments. But I see it opening as being quite, quite positive.

Well, I appreciate that. And as I look through it, because I was trying to find things that, that were positive, because I didn't want this to be a dump on Russell M. Nelson podcast. The thing that struck me most positive about the talk is when he, when he emphasizes the importance of individual personal testimony and the ability to receive individual personal revelation, which is really, in the grand scheme of things, somewhat radical. I believe, uh, to, to have a church leader who claims to have this kind of authority, this special authority to be able to talk to God, to say you have the ability one-on-one to establish your own relationship with God and please seek out that ability, uh, I, I think that's encouraging. And I, I think that was probably my favorite part of the talk. Um, So segueing a little bit, part of the problem for me a little bit is that I was so enamored of his last conference talk, his talk about being a peacemaker 6 months previous. I've said this before, I will say it again. It was easily the best talk he's ever given and certainly one of the best talks I have ever heard at a conference pulpit.. And I thought, this is absolutely the message the Church needs to hear. It is inclusive. It is kind. It is, okay, we are a Church that is engaging with the whole world, and how do we deal with people who disagree with us? We need to do so by being peacemakers, not by judging others. You know, he talked about if someone in your ward gets a divorce, or somebody comes home from a mission early, they do not need your judgment. You know, I just thought, okay, we are opening up. We are, we are developing the tools we talked about in our last conference, last podcast. You know, you would talk about the fact that the church doesn't seem to want us to have the tools to deal with mixed faith marriages and with children who leave and all of those. And that peacemaker talk sort of laid the groundwork for all of that. And, and I was hoping for and maybe even, you know, anticipating— I think I'd convinced myself that this is what Russell M. Nelson wants to be his theological legacy, this idea of peacemaking, this idea of building bridges and all of those kinds of things. And I thought, okay, we still have a long ways to go. My guess is he's going to build on that. He's going to expand on that, and we're going to get a continuation of that. Because despite that talk, we still remain a largely divided church in a lot of ways. And I was hoping, okay, here's President Nelson, he's demonstrated that this is his top priority, and we're going to hear more on it. And we didn't. And not only did we not what I heard was largely insular talk, looking inward, sort of shrinking the circle of influence, removing ourselves from environments where we would disagree or have to disagree respectfully. Just this, this focus inward that I think is also a step backward. And so I was I was disappointed. I was disappointed that many of the things that were said in President Nelson's talk seemed to contradict things President Nelson had said 6 months earlier. Now, there are 3 elements of the talk that have survived past the talk. You know, General Conference talks, most of them. I mean, if you tried to remember anything that anybody said 6 months ago in the last conference, you come up maybe with the Peacemaker talk. And maybe that's about it. You know, most people, you don't remember a lot of the specifics, but there are 3 specifics from this talk that, that continue to endure after conference and I think will continue to endure until the next conference. The first is this idea of think celestial. I think that's the title of the talk. You know, he kept saying, whenever you come up against anything, think celestial. And some of those things didn't quite make any sense is when you get a back injury like I did, think celestial.

Well, why?

How does that help you with your back? But everything was about think celestial. And I listened to that. And the first thing that came to mind for me was a movie. I don't know. Do you remember back in the '70s? It was like it came out in 1978. There was a movie called Oh God. Starring George Burns. Uh, really old man, you're shaking your head. You don't, you don't remember this movie?

I don't.

No, no. It's, it is a classic. The problem was when it came out in 1978, I was 10 years old and it was called Oh God. And, uh, my parents wouldn't let me say the name of the movie. They took us all to see the movie. Uh, but we couldn't call it Oh God. So we called it Oh Gosh. The movie came out called Oh Gosh. But basically it's George Burns, who at the time was in his 90s. And, you know, and now we have Russell Nelson, who's 99. George Burns wasn't that old when that movie came out, but he was— he played this— he visited a supermarket manager named John Denver and essentially called him as a prophet and had this message for the world. And it actually theologically feels an awful lot like Mormonism. It feels an awful lot like the restored gospel. And a lot of members of the church really loved it. And it was a big hit. And it revitalized George Burns's career. I mean, he was an old man and everybody thought his career was over. And then he had this late career where he played this old guy. And there were two sequels to Oh God, and the second one was called Oh God Book Two. And in, in the sequel— neither one of the sequels is very good. The third one is better because George Burns plays both God and the devil, and there's a poker game where God and the devil are playing poker with each other, and that's kind of fun. But in the second movie, God appears to a little girl and wants to get his message out And what he tells her to do is spread the slogan, Think God. And so this little girl writes Think God on a bunch of posters and puts them up at her school, and they get her friends to put it up all around town. And this is the message, and it's Think God. And I remember even watching that. I— that came out maybe 3 or 4 years after the original movie, so I was a little bit older. And I remember thinking, what does that even mean? Who cares? Think God. Think God what? Think God how? It was just so vapid and empty and sort of worthless. And that second movie, nobody even remembers the second movie. They remember the first, but not the second. And so when I hear think celestial, I think, well, I don't, I don't really get it. I don't get the meat of it. I don't understand how that is helpful. I mean, I'm not upset by it. I'm not offended by it. I just don't really get it. Do you get it? Does it mean anything to you?

I think so, which is interesting because I'm on the outside looking in. Anyone listening to this podcast, we might sound like I'm on the inside and you're on the outside, which I think this is a very healthy part of our podcast. So yeah, I see I, I, first of all, I think his, his intent is good. I see what he's trying to do. Um, you know, Elder Oaks delivered the talk about the two, three kingdoms. Uh, you know, he talked about the Sussex Kingdom, the exaltation being the highest, and that I think was a, a precursor to this. I think those two got together and co-wrote this together, by the way. I really do. I think Oaks had a hand in this and they've been working together, very correlated, and some similarities and alignment between the talks for sure. So what— so on the back of Elder Oaks' talk, which that message was, look, aim for the highest, right? You know, exaltation is a family matter. He was very clear with Elder Oaks. This talk is consistent with that. So if there's any problem, any challenge physically, mentally, this is what I get from Think Celestial is think about the context. Of why we're here and where we are and where we're going and where you're trying to get to. The choices you're making, life's experience right now, understand it in the context. Think celestial, think the highest, think that it's all for a good reason, it's all for a purpose. You're going through this trial, tribulations, but in the end, you will be with God, exalted with God in the highest degree of the celestial kingdom. And that's what I get from that. Think celestial, keep your eye on the big picture. Yes, you're going through all these challenges, et cetera, physical, emotional, whatever, but don't lose sight of where you're going and how you're gonna get in. The choice that you make here right now will determine if you get into the ice. That's what I get from that. And, and so if I get that and I'm on the outside, I think, uh, a lot of people or some people on the inside will come to the same interpretation as that. And I think for them, it will help them to remember, you know, what the main focus and purpose of this life, things like that. So, so I see what he's trying to do, and I see, you know, good intent behind it.

Well, no, I absolutely see good intent behind it. I think that there's, there's good intent behind this entire talk.

Yeah, I do.

I, it was interesting. Because one of the things maybe that clouded it for me is he kept talking about the fact that, you know, we aim for the celestial because the celestial resurrection, the body that we receive when we're resurrected is different in a celestial resurrection than in the lower resurrections. And this is an old chestnut that he's dusting off that I thought the church had sort of moved beyond. Which is the Joseph Fielding Smith, Bruce R. McConkie idea that telestial resurrected bodies are different in substance, or are just somehow different from terrestrial resurrected bodies and celestial resurrected bodies. And when Joseph Fielding Smith was pressed on this, uh, his answer essentially was that there is no genitalia in the lower kingdoms. This is what critics have come to call the TK smoothie. TK standing for terrestrial kingdom or telestial kingdom, that if you're resurrected with those bodies, you're a smoothie, you're, you're a Ken doll. You lost your genitalia. And it's, it's, it's, it's, it's kind of an absurd teaching. And it's, and it's, and it's contradictory now to the idea that we have in the Family Proclamation, which insists that gender is an eternal part of our identity. Well, if it's an eternal part of an identity, but all physical manifestations of gender are removed for anybody that doesn't make the celestial kingdom, then that doesn't work. That, that means gender is not eternal. Gender ends for those who are not righteous enough to have their gender continue. This teaching has never really caught on and has never really been propagated beyond Joseph Fielding Smith's lifetime, although Bruce R. McConkie sort of kept pressing it. I mean, Bruce R. McConkie was Joseph Fielding Smith's son-in-law. And so, you know, there has been an element of this. But for President Nelson to lean into this so heavily with a talk about the kind of body that you're going to receive, it felt like that, that's kind of where he was going. And I don't know if anybody else felt that way. I do know that that kind of an idea also wildly contradicts the Book of Mormon, which gives us the most explicit scriptural understanding of what resurrection is. You know, there are people who read the Bible who still argue that the resurrection isn't a physical thing, that there's a spiritual resurrection. You know, there's never sort of an explicit description of resurrection in the Bible, and there is in the Book of Mormon, and it talks about how every part of your body will be restored to its perfect frame and not a hair of your head will be lost. I hope some people get more hair on their heads. I think my dad, who lost all his hair at 21, would be happy to see his pre-21 hair return. But, you know, that everything will be restored to its proper frame. And the church has repeatedly emphasized the fact that this is a universal gift, that everybody is resurrected with a perfect body. And so, and that— so the idea that, well, some people are resurrected with a perfect body and then others are resurrected with a more perfect body. I mean, I would not believe my body resurrection was perfect if I was resurrected without genitalia. That just doesn't work for me. Am I reading too much into that, or did you catch some of that?

I did. I did. I'm going along the same lines, actually. I— if it was me leading this part of the conversation, I'd be saying the same thing, but I would add this extension to it. Bruce R. McConkie, was it Joseph Fielding Smith, you know, talked about this. Others have talked about it on and off. Uh, in the, in the, um, uh, rank and file circles with certain people, the notion that, uh, or the, the concept that you're describing has been, um, something that has been discussed at the, you know, the rank and file leadership level, you know, with people who've asked questions of the bishop or the stake president, for sure. But they, he's gone further where, uh, and I include myself in this as well based on what I've been taught in the church, what I've been asked a few times over the years is, uh, can you have sex in the next life? And the answer that I gave was based on what I was taught over the years was that only you can only have sex if you make it to the highest level of exaltation in the celestial kingdom because you have all your genitalia and you have all of the human functions and desires and emotions, uh, in its completeness. And that's the only place, um, and time that you can actually have sex, you know, in the next life. And that's what I was taught, and that's what I taught when I was asked. I've not heard anything official on that, but I've also not heard it shot down either. And then to your point, if you look at the halfway through the talk, he talks about, you know, clearly we're taught that men and women, only men and women who are sealed as husband and wife in the temple, keep the covenants, will be together throughout the eternities. I find that absolutely awful thing to say. I think it's terrible. I think if you know, if two couples of the same sex love each other, why can't they be together forever? Well, they can't. Based on that, you can't go to the temple. So they don't make, don't, uh, open the covenants, therefore they can't keep the covenants. He also says here, and this is a contractual statement which I find again just doubles down on the hard line here: all covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows. Like a, like a, you know, I deal with legal contracts all the time. It's like a legal clause reminder tied to this spiritual thing, you know. All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, expectations that are not made, entered into by the seal by the Holy Spirit of promise, which is the temple, of course, have an end when men are dead. So look, you know, if you got the same sex, if you got— if you love somebody of the same sex, it— that love dies, uh, that relationship dies at the point of death. And then, and then this next paragraph is very— first time I've heard it like this, uh, plus if we unwisely choose to live celestial laws. Now, celestial laws, we are choosing to be resurrected with a celestial body. We are choosing not to live with our families forever. I find that last comment absolutely awful thing to say. You know, who on earth would choose not to live with a family? Well, I, I suspect some people would, you know, if the families are quite, uh, destructive and, and, uh, it's an awful experience for people like I suspect there are people that don't want to be with the family forever. So I see it from that point. But I don't think he's saying that. He's saying that, you know, unless you go to the temple, you know, take out your covenants, live the covenants, your family, you know, traditional family, as he's describing here, you just won't be with them. What's confusing and requires— opens up so many questions is, to your point, what is a terrestrial body? How does that differ from a celestial body? He's not talking about Sun, Moon, planets, and stars bodies which are spoken about in the scriptures. It's those characters he's talking about, our physical human bodies. And, and the celestial body clearly is different, different than a celestial. And I think that's the genitalia element that you're talking about. If there's other aspects of, of physical differences which runs contrary to that scripture, the Book of Mormon, about the, you know, more clear description of resurrection, then, you know, what the heck is he talking about? It's— I have no idea what a celestial body is compared to a celestial body. That, that, that's a conversation I'd love to have with him and for anyone else who has answers. And if anyone out there is in podcast land there who knows the answer to this question, please tell us, uh, you, what the difference is between a celestial body and a celestial body, because I have absolutely no idea.

Well, nobody does. Nobody. I I mean, I remember having a conversation with an unnamed General Authority because I'm going to be uncharitable towards him because this was a sort of a negative confrontation. But we were talking about LGBTQ issues and he said to me, it is scientifically impossible for same-sex attraction to survive in a resurrected body. And I just looked at him And I thought, it's scientifically impossible? Do you have some research that I can look at? Do you have, you know, an abstract and a paper? And I mean, we don't scientifically know anything about the resurrection. We have no idea scientifically. What we know scientifically is the resurrection is impossible based on our current scientific understanding. We have no scientific understanding or data or evidence that resurrection is even possible. Resurrection. The idea of resurrection is something we take on faith. I firmly believe that there will be a resurrection, but I can't justify that scientifically in any way. I mean, you do the science and 100% of people die, you know. And so far, I mean, that's science. You know, so to appeal to science, to appeal to, to say that we understand scientifically anything about resurrection is a very silly thing to do.

And we know science at the moment at least tells us that no one has been resurrected. Yes, we know about Christ as being the only one resurrected. You know, that happened 2,000 years ago or so. But right now, I don't see any science, any empirical data which suggest that someone has physically come back from the dead. Um, so if, if, you know, if there is science out there on that, then I certainly will be interested in learning about that. Yeah. And, but I'm keen to— I'm very interested in this, uh, you know, where the heck does this come from? It just comes out, out of the blue here, you know, this celestial body, celestial bodies. I mean, it's the Prophet, it's official, it's a conference, right? There's a difference. Uh, I get the spiritual difference, right? You know, they've not been as valiant and therefore they're at a lower level. I get that. But the physical difference, um, what does that look like, um, scientifically, right?

Well, part of that in terms of Bruce R. McConkie and Joseph Fielding Smith was a way to avoid immorality in the lower kingdoms. Right? If I have my genitalia and I'm not in the celestial kingdom, and what else am I going to do with my time? You know, it's like, well, it doesn't matter anymore. I might as well sleep with everybody.

You know, I think this doctrine, this teaching was specifically made for you, for Jim Bennett, because Jim, you know, if Jim is given all the instruments to you know, to misbehave, then you could slip between different kingdoms, Lord family, through the tunnels, through the corridors, unknowingly in between the little channels, a little bit like The Matrix coming in and out there, and get up to all kinds of mischief if you've got your full physical capabilities. So I think that's, you know, they thought about this really carefully when they were thinking, that they were thinking about creating Jim Bennett and actually probably Ian Wilkes as well.

So, uh, this has taken a dark and strange turn that, uh, that we probably—

it's good to laugh about it. I mean, you know, there's a serious point here. This doctoral thing, it's fascinating, it's intriguing, it's weird. But you know, what the heck is the difference between a Cecil body physically and a celestial, or even a terrestrial, I have no idea. Anyone out there has got any answer to this, please let us know.

Yeah, I don't think anybody has any idea. And so, so I just kind of throw that out as a, as a fun little tangent. But yeah, so, so I mentioned earlier the 3 things that have survived past this talk that have, that are enduring. The first is this Think Celestial idea. I'm going to skip the second one for a second. Because I think we're going to spend a lot of time on that one. But the third one is the 20 temples that he announced at the end. 20 temples.

Yeah.

Now, prior to President Nelson's administration, the idea that we would get a 20-temple announcement at the end of conference would have been flabbergasting. And for the first few times, President Nelson has done this. You know, you get this list of temples that are going to be built, some of which have been announced and then sort of quietly discarded. I'm thinking of the Shanghai, China temple that it's not happening, or the temple that was proposed in Russia, which is obviously not happening. I don't know how many of the temples that President Nelson has announced are are actually under construction or even in the planning stages. But we got these 20 temples and everybody was like, wow, you know, here we go. Except the excitement of this has, has somewhat diminished because now we expect it. We expect this long laundry list of temples. And cynical Jim Bennett thinks, well, how many of these are actually going to be built? And the one that jumped out at me in the list was he wanted to build a temple in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia.

Yeah, I can see it. Yep.

And, and I, in my ward, we had a couple that they were called as mission presidents to Mongolia and left. They learned Mongolian in the MTC and studied it. They left and She got breast cancer, unfortunately, into their mission and came home for treatment. And then they went back and served out as mission presidents in Montana instead of Mongolia. Their joke was that their missions had to have M and O at the beginning. Didn't matter where. M-O-N. But, but in their talks when they came back after, I think it was about 7 months, They came back from Mongolia and they told the story of just how few members there were there, how, how, how geographically distant the membership was. You know, it was very hard for them to, to put branches, let alone wards together in Mongolia because you had a member family here and then another member family 300 miles away. Mongolia is huge. Mongolia, I think, is close to this, to the geographical size of the United States. I could be getting that wrong, but it's pretty big and it's pretty rural and spread out. And you don't have concentrations of members anywhere in Mongolia. My guess is you don't have more than triple digits members in the entire country. And so I listen to these temple announcements and I listen to one in Mongolia And I think, who's going to go to this temple? And more importantly, who's going to staff this temple? And we got a conference talk from Elder Rasband leaning on missionary, leaning on senior missionary couples, asking for more senior missionary couples and sort of trying to ramp that up. Because I think we're now, it used to be in the old days that a temple announcement was a sign of growth. We, you know, we would announce a temple because the membership had grown so much in that area that the temples that they needed to use were either too far away or too full. And so we announced another new temple in those areas to accommodate that growth. And there's no way the temple announcements aren't doing that anymore. And the most charitable way to look at them is that they are anticipating future growth. But the more cynical, and I confess this is kind of how I look at them, is that I think that they're an attempt to maintain an illusion of growth that, that isn't really there. I mean, I, I just don't think you can find the numbers. To justify a temple in Mongolia. And I looked at it online, and even, you know, very faithful members, they announced the temple in Oklahoma. I don't remember if it's Tulsa or somewhere else. And they said, well, we've got another temple in Oklahoma, and it's not full. And then we have another temple that's 2 hours away, and that's not full. You know, they announced the temple a few conferences ago, another temple in England. While they're closing stakes in England. And you just have to wonder, okay, so, so what is the thinking here? What is the strategy here? Is this a prophetic promise that the growth will come to accommodate these temples? Is that how— is that the faithful way to look at this? Because I'm trying to find a faithful way to look at this, because what it looks like to me is propping up an illusion of growth that just is not happening. The church is not exploding in Mongolia. And, you know, am I looking at this wrong? How would you look at it?

Okay, not entirely, but I see, again, from my perspective, a couple more things I wanna add to what you're saying. I'm looking at a map right now of Mongolia on Google Maps, and it's vast. And mostly desert. The Mongolian desert is huge. This is a sizable country. It's huge. And the city or the town that is Ulaanbaatar is, looking at the map, it looks like it's the main, it's the capital. At least it looks like it's the only center of population in all of Mongolia, as in the biggest metropolis, if you can call it that, in Mongolia. The rest is towns, hamlets, villages, smaller towns, and, and just vast, vast spaces of nothingness. And so, so that's interesting. To your points, I, I, I think, and keeping in mind, a lot of the— many of the temples that have been around for a long time, that the church struggles with staffing them and is always asking members and putting pressure on members to, you know, go to the temple, work in the temple, because you need those resources, you need to be able to operate the temples. And the ones in the UK and here that I'm familiar with, the ones in Vancouver here and the Preston Temple in England, they, they often struggle finding people to go work in the temple, and they've shortened the number of days for people to go work there because they just can't get people on the other days. So, you know, to your point, how they're going to staff these temples is— I don't, I don't know what the thinking is of that. At the same time, these decisions are not made lightly. The decision to announce the temple in Mongolia is based on some type of level of reasonable intelligence and information which supports their decision making. I suspect these are smaller temples, leaner, smaller buildings. When we think of a temple, we probably think of a large structure. I've heard from reliable sources when I was on the Stake Presidency that the church will be building more smaller temples. You've probably heard that as well. But the cost— there's a cost element there. So I think it does signify growth. I think the church's intent is to signify growth. I don't think it's an entire, a, a, entirely an illusion to your point. I, they, they, they are measuring the work they do vicariously for the dead in the temples. We know that that information is recorded. We know that, you know, the names are recorded, the audiences are recorded, the ages are recorded, the location's recorded. It's all recorded. It's all captured. Are they going to bring that in, in some metric at some point? We've talked about this on a, previous podcast, I believe at some point there'll be some language around that. It might not be added to the entire membership of 16 million or 17 million that, you know, the baptized millions, and now with 50 million or 30 million. I don't think they're going to go there right now. That might happen in the future. But yes, they are, uh, they do want to communicate growth. This is one way of doing that. The temples are going to be smaller, leaner. So think, think about that from a financial perspective, they must have done some research enough to see if this Mongoli temple can be operated and staffed. And they must have some numbers that they have confidence in where the members will actually attend, attend the temple. They're not doing very well on, on traditional conventional baptisms. You know, we're hemorrhaging people in the church. People are joining but leaving fairly quickly. My old ward in England, which is the Wakefield ward in the Huddersfield stake, used to be one ward when I was there. It then split years ago into two wards, the Harborough and Wakefield ward. And recently it was just amalgamated back into one ward. And I'm seeing that across the UK where stakes are amalgamating and wards are coming together. And so how do they show growth? Well, they show growth through building smaller temples and also geographical growth. If you look at the geographical spread now, Mongolia is like, you know, miles away, but there's an argument from the church to say, look, the work is rolling forward to every kindred tongue and people that was prophesied. Look what's happening here geographically. We're expanding. And I think that's an important message to the saints, that the gospel, despite challenges and problems within the United States and more established, you know, Mormon populations, the church continues to grow internationally because we're an international church and the word is spreading to every kindred tongue of people across every land. So there is a, there is a strategic element to the, you know, communicating that in that way. So if you look at growth in that sense, you know, geographical growth, temple growth, etc., etc., that maintains some level of confidence, I think, from the members that the church continues to grow. So, so that's, that's, there's another side, I think, to, to this, which I, I see looking from the outside looking in.

Well, so people should listen to your counsel and not mine, except I'm the one on the inside. And that brings the second The second point that I skipped over that I think I'd want to spend the rest of this podcast discussing, because this is, there's one sentence in this talk that the Church News the day after the talk released this sentence as not just the summary of President Nelson's talk, but the summary essentially of all of conference. And this is a sentence that I think has broken a lot of hearts as they've listened to it. President Nelson was talking about how the deceptions of the adversary are everywhere, that there you can't count the number of ways that the devil can deceive you. And so another— so a way to be able to except that is never take counsel from those who don't believe. And I, I physically winced when I heard that sentence. And I have seen many attempts by sort of apologetic people saying, well, you don't really understand the context. Look at the context. He doesn't really mean what those words say. And then they'll post what he said beforehand and what he said afterwards. But from my perspective, that makes it even worse. Because he talks directly before this. I'm trying to pull up the exact quote. He never take counsel of those who don't believe. Those are the words. And I'm trying to find what he talks about beforehand. But what he says beforehand is the description of, of all the different deceptions of the devil and all these different things. And so you're left with this very, very inward-looking retrenchment into, okay, you can't accept any counsel from anybody who doesn't believe. Unless you live right in the heart of the Zion Curtain, that is not possible to do, you know, because the implication of that is, well, never hire a lawyer who doesn't believe because you don't want to have his counsel representing you. Don't go to a doctor who doesn't believe. And there have been people who've done research that shows that President Nelson actually believes that. You know, he talks about even in the talk, he talked about how, how he got in trouble because people said there was just too much temple in him. And so he, he, you know, he sees this kind of insular thinking in every aspect of life, not just the church, because the apologists are trying to say what he meant was don't take church teachings from those who don't believe. But that's not what he said. And even if that were what he said, that would still be problematic. Uh, you know, we, we at conference— I remember Neil Maxwell particularly loved, loved to quote C.S. Lewis, who was a great Christian writer and who has lifted my faith in countless ways. I adore C.S. Lewis. I adore Mere Christianity and a number of other things—Screw Tape Letters, you know. But C.S. Lewis did not believe in the restored gospel. He did not believe in the priesthood keys and the authority of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Should I not take counsel from him anymore? But the most explosive element of this is the fact that this is a dagger through the heart of a mixed faith marriage. President Nelson is essentially telling people that if one of your parents believes and one of your parents does not, don't take counsel from the one who doesn't. This, this— I'm going to read this quickly. This is a letter that was online. The names have been redacted, but this letter is from somebody who has essentially said that they're leaving the church now because of this talk. I'm going to read it quickly. Hello, Bishop. I'm writing today to inform you that I won't be attending church with any regularity from this point on. I sincerely regret the inconvenience this places you in particular— you— and it's blacked out, so there's a name there— in particular. I fully intended to help with the program, but after the prophet's remarks at general conference, this is no longer possible. That talk was the last straw. In short, it is impossible for me to endorse through my silence a church captained by by leaders who insist that honorable, compassionate people like my husband are, quote, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils, unquote. And more importantly, I will not tolerate my son being taught to, quote, never take counsel from those who do not believe. That is to say, his father. A truly shocking thing to be taught in the name of Jesus. The true beauty of the church has always been found at the local level. I have stayed as long as I have because of welcoming and friendly people like all of you. Please understand that neither blank or I harbor any resentment towards anyone in the ward. We are not interested in proselytizing efforts, but are hopeful we can continue to participate in social events and service projects. I felt that directing this email to the three of you was appropriate given my position in the Primary and to facilitate logistics for the Relief Society as needed. I am happy to continue to receive ministering outreach, but understand if those efforts are felt to be better served elsewhere. Thank you all for understanding. Blank. Uh, you know, I, I, I, I heard some Ian Wilkes in this. We are hopeful we can continue to participate in social events and service projects. Uh, my, my, the likelihood is they probably won't be, but I, I don't see any other way for a mixed faith marriage to incorporate those words. Again, can you find a positive in that that I, that I'm not finding?

I, I agree with what you're saying and that, that letter is heartbreaking and I understand how anyone of most people would come to that interpretation and I, and I share most of that. I can, I, I come to the same, um, interpretation as that because you know what the Prophet says, those words are very, very important and he has to get them right and I think his he has communicated something or tried to talk about, uh, something and has completely messed up and has spoken words intended for a different interpretation than the one that perhaps most people have arrived at. His intent is— and I'm not trying to defending Tumultuous because it's a real terrible thing that he said. But I think what he's trying to say, or he wants to say, or should have said, is, look, there are a lot of temptations in the world. He talks earlier, and the context and the paradox earlier are very important to informing the interpretation behind that terrible comment that he makes. He talks about, as you think celestial, you'll find yourself avoiding anything that robs you of your agency. Talks about the addictions. And by the way, he talks of that, uh, the addiction to food is, is, um, you know, can keep you out of the celestial kingdom. But that's, that's gonna be a problem for, um, you know, for some people. And then he talks about, you know, addiction and spiritual and professional help, et cetera. And, uh, you know, he talks about, uh, the world doesn't believe a lot of things that the church teaches, but public opinion is not the arbiter of truth. And he talks about, uh, church being challenged and truth being challenged, et cetera, et cetera. And so, you know, he talks about, as you think celestial, you will view trials and opposition in a new light. When someone you love attacks truth, presuming he means the church, think celestial and don't question your testimony. And then he goes on to say, please be prepared. Please be prepared. Never take counsel from those who do not believe. And what I think he means I think what he wanted to say, uh, at this point in his, in his talk was that those who, uh, attack the church and question the church and are anti-Mormon or oppose the church, et cetera, uh, don't take counsel from them. You know, they are enemies of the church, they oppose the church, they're attacking the eternal principles of the church, and from such do not take counsel. That's what I think he intended to mean. I think that's what he was trying to say, wanted to say, should have said, and should have done it better. But the interpretation that a lot of people have, and, and, and myself included, is that, uh, you know, if you're in a fixed faith, or to the example that you provided, and, and there's other examples professionals, et cetera. Do you not take counsel from anyone that doesn't believe, whether they're in your family or your friendship and you trust them and, or, or they're in your professional circle because they're not members of the church or they don't subscribe to the principles of the church? I don't, I honestly, Jim, I don't think he meant that. I really don't believe, I don't accept that he meant that. I really don't. I believe he was talking about, uh, anyone who is, is, uh, attacking the principles of the church, the truth and the divinity of the church, and the doctrines who oppose the church, uh, who are in opposition to the church. Those people who will tear down your testimony, who will get you to doubt your testimony— don't take counsel from those people. I think that's what he meant. He didn't say that. He used the words that he did, and I can understand why a lot of people, perhaps most people, arrived at a different, uh, conclusion, I suspect. But going back to what I was saying, a lot of people have arrived at the interpretation that I have looking from the outside in. But you will have, uh, perhaps many people who have arrived at the same interpretation which have been communicated in the letter that you've just, uh, shared with us. I think it's a poor selection of words I don't see how, you know, unless you're thinking like this, I can see how people would, you know, take a more negative response to this. And I think it's very poorly written, very poor choices. And then when you're talking about, when he talks about, this is a really important point in his professional life where he doesn't, work or follow counsel for people who are not members and don't believe. I think that gives credence to, uh, that he might be meaning this literally. So had that part not been in the talk, you know, about his— or any previous references to him not following counsel from non-members, etc., if there's no information on that, or if we— if he, if he did take counsel from non-members, etc., then I think that would give him more credibility. But the fact that he thinks like that and feels like that And it's this very insular, you know, only take counsel from those who are absolutely faithful, who believe. If he means that, and he might do, then I think that's a terrible mindset to have. It's very destructive, very damaging, very harmful. I don't think he meant that, but if he did, then he's delusional, and I think he's very, very lost.

So that's my thoughts. Well, You know, you had said earlier you thought that maybe Oaks and Nelson had coordinated their talks. And one of the things that I see in everything President Oaks says is he really does choose his words very, very carefully. He does. Yeah. The example in this last conference talk where he's quoting a previous conference talk is he talks about irrevocable doctrine. With regard to the Family Proclamation. And, and the people who use the Family Proclamation as a weapon seize on that phrase irrevocable or irrevocable. I'm not sure which way to pronounce it. Irrevocable doctrine. They seize on that phrase as see, aha, we can use this to beat up on LGBTQ people. But that's not what he said. He said founded on irrevocable doctrine. And those words mean something to him and should mean something to us and were chosen very carefully. He understands the boundary that that phrase creates. I mean, he's very specific in all of that. I don't get the sense that this phrase was chosen with that same degree of care and same degree of precision, because I actually think he means it literally. I really do. Interesting. Based on, based on his talk about his, his, his professional life and how he kept running up against persecution, essentially for being a member of the church, I see this as a deliberate call to be insular. And, and it really does break my heart. It really is. That was the most difficult moment of conference for me. You know, the guys who think that my head exploded during President Oaks' talk, my head was fine during President Oaks' talk. Right. I had a physical, visceral reaction to this sentence. I mean, I can remember how this sentence hit me. I just went, oh my goodness, really? Is that really what you want to say? And it is so antithetical to what he said 6 months ago. 6 months ago, he said exactly the opposite. He said to engage with people who don't believe or who disagree or, you know, just shut them out completely. Just don't ever take their counsel. Don't listen to them. They're part of seducing spirits and doctrines of devils. I, I mean, I want to believe a more inclusive definition of that. And my faith, again, as I say, is at a place where it is not contingent on Russell M. Nelson speaking from Mount Olympus as an oracle 24 hours a day. I can, I can still love and sustain President Nelson and still think that, hey, he got this, he got this wrong. And because if I can't do that, that I would have to be like the woman with the letter. I'd have to be like, well, really, if you're going to demand that I no longer listen to and respect people who don't share my beliefs, if that's going to be— if that's the deal breaker, then my conscience won't allow me to stick around. But it's— but, you know, that's not where my faith is. That's not— my faith is not in the perfection of Russell M. Nelson. My faith is in the perfection of Jesus Christ. And, and I believe Christ's hands continues to be in this church despite missteps, despite errors. And, you know, it's interesting because the last few months have highlighted some of the divisions in the church, stark divisions, deep divisions. The whole Tim Ballard episode showed that there were people who were more willing to side with right-wing politics and Tim Ballard than with the Church. And these are people that would call me faithless for having a hard time with President Nelson's talk. But to some degree, all of us are what they call cafeteria Mormons. You know, we saw that during COVID We saw that there were people that refused to take the prophet's counsel to mask. Refused to take the prophet's counsel to get vaccinated. We've seen that. We've seen that here recently in the Tim Ballard episode. You know, everybody to some degree has to reconcile even, you know, contradictory information. Am I— should I be more faithful to the peacemaker talk or should I be more faithful to this talk? Because I see them being in direct conflict with each other. They both came from the same guy. From the same prophet, seer, and revelator. So which one do I obey? Which one do I favor? And for me, I am going to hold on to the peacemaker talk and look at this sentence as an anomaly that I cannot incorporate into my faith in good conscience. I just can't. I just can't accept that this is the message that Jesus Christ has for us, which is to completely withdraw from the world. It, it, in, uh, in every respect, uh, you know, there was a talk— I'm reminded of a talk by L. Tom Perry, uh, I think this was on our missions. I mean, this is, this is decades ago, and the talk was about being in the world but not of the world. That's a phrase we don't hear a lot anymore, but it's a phrase that was used quite often. Be in the world but not of the world. And he said, okay, well, my talk's going to be about being in the world. He says, because we have to be in the world and we have to engage with the world. We don't withdraw from the world. We don't go hide in monasteries. We are in the world. We are in the world and we are making a difference. And that's the talk where he talked about going to cocktail parties and getting a glass of milk. I remember. Yep. Yep.

And President Banks was there. Oh, yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. Um, and so— Was it Bob J.

Ashton or Elton Perry? Elton Perry.

Elton Perry. Okay. Right. And, uh, and, and he talked about how, you know, I, I didn't want to have even the appearance of an alcoholic drink. So I had a glass of milk. And he said that, that, that started so many conversations and people just sort of loved that and thought it was charming and it got him lots of business, you know, it was positive for him in the world, you know. So, so I, I love that kind of thing where it's Okay, how do we engage with the world? This is a world filled with children of God who are every bit, you know, as much children of our Heavenly Father as I am, as you are. And to just say, well, cut all of them out except those who believe is just not a message I'm willing to accept. I'm willing to, and you know, I don't think anyone's gonna kick me out of the church for saying that. But if I have to cut out everybody in my life that is not a believer, I'm not going to do that. I'm not willing to do that.

I don't think you have to, and I don't think— I'm pretty sure he's not saying that, Jim. I think you're right to hold on to the former talk, you know, with Nelson 6 months ago. And I don't accept or believe that he's done a complete 180 shift. I just don't buy it. I think this is a poor choice of words, a terrible, terrible choice of words. I don't take it, I don't interpret it literally. I can see why people would based on Nelson's experience in the world and drawing back and thinking insular, you know, he's referenced that. I can see why that's problematic. But I don't believe or accept he has done a complete 180, uh, turnaround from the talk he gave 6 months ago. Uh, in the, you know, after the, he said, please be prepared, never take counsel from those that do not believe. He said that seek guidance from voices you can trust, from prophets, seers, and revelators, from the whisperings of the Holy Ghost who will show you all things, uh, uh, what ye should do. I honestly believe that he's talking about those who attack the church, who attack testimonies, who pull down testimonies, who oppose the church. I think, I believe, is, if I give him any benefit of this, any benefit whatsoever in this very poorly worded statement, a terrible, terrible thing to write and not intelligent enough, frankly, to see how this could easily be interpreted in the way that you're talking about, you're sharing, and others have interpreted it. But I believe he's talking about not taking counsel from those who are trying to pull their head in, who oppose the church. I believe that. And so I think he's, he's probably having a— if he's having a debrief, if I hear that the apostles get together, I don't know if you know this, but they get together, have a debrief on how conference went, and they talk about, you know, what's the reaction from rank-and-file members and, you know, different audiences, etc., because it's a strategic audience. You've got the members, You've got the General Authority leadership, you've got bishops and stake presidents, you've got the non-members, you've got the media, you've got, you've got people like me who are on the outside in, you've got out-and-out anti-Mormons, you've got who are very active on the, on the internet, you've got people like you who are more nuanced. You've got a whole series of strategic, uh, you know, tactical audiences out there that they, um, they have to, um, be very thoughtful of in terms of most of the rank and file Kitebane members. And now you've got that letter, uh, from that, uh, that sister who's, um, understandably having a very difficult time with this and now wanting to, to leave. But I don't believe he meant that. I, I just— I'm not— I hope he didn't. I don't think he did. I really don't. Um, so, you know, this might surprise you, uh, or others rather, you know, coming from someone like me who's who sees a lot of, uh, damage and destruction that the church causes, um, on all kinds of, uh, topics and, and, and issues. And, um, and so I, and so I, I, I just think that this is a very, very poorly choice of words which have now come back to, to bite him. I hope, I hope it's not literal. I just, I don't think it is. I don't believe it, that it should be taken literally. So that, that's, that's my outside looking in perspective.

Well, so I think the moral of the story— we've come, I think, to the end of our podcast here— but the moral of the story is that if you are a faithful believing member and you're listening to this podcast, you should take counsel from Ian Wilkes and not from Jim Bennett. With regard to this sentence, uh, because I think you are looking at this more charitably than I am, uh, more inclusively than I am. And I think that that really is the only way forward if you want to embrace this language from President Nelson. So take counsel from Ian Wilkes is my lesson.

Well, be very careful about any counsel you take from me. But yeah, I mean, if we take this literally, this— and I'm going to close here— take it literally, then you shouldn't accept counsel from me. But if anything, if there's anything positive, and I think there are some positive things that I have said, and I've done so sincerely and genuinely and honestly, I do see some— you know, I'm trying to give him the benefit of the doubt here because he is, you know, he speaks for God but is also human, and it's a complete screw-up of words. But I just don't, I just don't believe he, he meant that. And so, well, um, and so then go ahead.

No, I, I, I'm also leaning into the end of the 13th Article of Faith. If there's anything virtuous, lovely, of good report, or praiseworthy, we seek after these things. And I've always been struck by the fact that seek is an active verb. It's not, we like these things. It's that we go after them. We go find them. We work to discover them. We look for them. We look for them. And I very much, very much appreciate the fact that you have looked for the good in this talk and found good in this talk that I did not. So I appreciate you seeking after the virtuous, the lovely, the good report and praiseworthy things.

Well, so thank you. But again, be careful about any counsel you, you know, you follow from me. I I should put a disclaimer here that my counsel, it's far from perfect.

You should now start giving tax advice, Ian. I think that's the next step. Probably.

But then again, if I don't fully believe, I don't take advice from somebody who's not aware. So a little bit of a, a little bit of a, a contradictory there. So I, I think I've kind of, I've been very contradictory in a very positive way on this by offering perhaps a little bit of good counsel in terms of how we interpret this. But then again, can you accept my counsel because I'm not a fully believing member? So there's a little bit of a bit of a dilemma there for people to think about.

Well, we'll, we'll let, we'll let the listeners wrestle with that until next time. But very much appreciated discussion. Very much appreciate your time. And so to all of you listening, we will see you hopefully next time on Inside Out. Thank you very much, Ian.

Thank you, Jim Bennett.